Vol. 29
Latest Volume
All Volumes
PIERB 109 [2024] PIERB 108 [2024] PIERB 107 [2024] PIERB 106 [2024] PIERB 105 [2024] PIERB 104 [2024] PIERB 103 [2023] PIERB 102 [2023] PIERB 101 [2023] PIERB 100 [2023] PIERB 99 [2023] PIERB 98 [2023] PIERB 97 [2022] PIERB 96 [2022] PIERB 95 [2022] PIERB 94 [2021] PIERB 93 [2021] PIERB 92 [2021] PIERB 91 [2021] PIERB 90 [2021] PIERB 89 [2020] PIERB 88 [2020] PIERB 87 [2020] PIERB 86 [2020] PIERB 85 [2019] PIERB 84 [2019] PIERB 83 [2019] PIERB 82 [2018] PIERB 81 [2018] PIERB 80 [2018] PIERB 79 [2017] PIERB 78 [2017] PIERB 77 [2017] PIERB 76 [2017] PIERB 75 [2017] PIERB 74 [2017] PIERB 73 [2017] PIERB 72 [2017] PIERB 71 [2016] PIERB 70 [2016] PIERB 69 [2016] PIERB 68 [2016] PIERB 67 [2016] PIERB 66 [2016] PIERB 65 [2016] PIERB 64 [2015] PIERB 63 [2015] PIERB 62 [2015] PIERB 61 [2014] PIERB 60 [2014] PIERB 59 [2014] PIERB 58 [2014] PIERB 57 [2014] PIERB 56 [2013] PIERB 55 [2013] PIERB 54 [2013] PIERB 53 [2013] PIERB 52 [2013] PIERB 51 [2013] PIERB 50 [2013] PIERB 49 [2013] PIERB 48 [2013] PIERB 47 [2013] PIERB 46 [2013] PIERB 45 [2012] PIERB 44 [2012] PIERB 43 [2012] PIERB 42 [2012] PIERB 41 [2012] PIERB 40 [2012] PIERB 39 [2012] PIERB 38 [2012] PIERB 37 [2012] PIERB 36 [2012] PIERB 35 [2011] PIERB 34 [2011] PIERB 33 [2011] PIERB 32 [2011] PIERB 31 [2011] PIERB 30 [2011] PIERB 29 [2011] PIERB 28 [2011] PIERB 27 [2011] PIERB 26 [2010] PIERB 25 [2010] PIERB 24 [2010] PIERB 23 [2010] PIERB 22 [2010] PIERB 21 [2010] PIERB 20 [2010] PIERB 19 [2010] PIERB 18 [2009] PIERB 17 [2009] PIERB 16 [2009] PIERB 15 [2009] PIERB 14 [2009] PIERB 13 [2009] PIERB 12 [2009] PIERB 11 [2009] PIERB 10 [2008] PIERB 9 [2008] PIERB 8 [2008] PIERB 7 [2008] PIERB 6 [2008] PIERB 5 [2008] PIERB 4 [2008] PIERB 3 [2008] PIERB 2 [2008] PIERB 1 [2008]
2011-03-30
A Proposed Method for Quantifying Uncertainty in RF Immunity Testing Due to Eut Presence
By
Progress In Electromagnetics Research B, Vol. 29, 175-190, 2011
Abstract
Throughout the performance of a RF immunity test according IEC 61000-4-3 there are several factors that should be taken into account to ensure the quality and to estimate the uncertainty associated to the results. One phenomenon that should be considered to calculate uncertainty is the disturbing effect produced by the EUT over the electric field generated within the calibrated uniform field area; nevertheless the mentioned effect is not easily quantifiable because the measuring process using additional antennas or field probes inside the semianechoic chamber could also alter the electric field distribution. An experimental method for quantifying the mentioned uncertainty contribution is presented. The method is based upon the fact that antenna-EUT coupling and reflection effects could be measured through changes in the input impedance of the field generation antenna. A validation procedure for the proposed method is also described. Hence, a relationship between the reflection coefficient at the antenna input port and the electric field strength is derived. The uncertainty contribution is calculated through the maximum relative change in the E-field intensity magnitude for the frequency range of 80-1000 MHz, considering the worst case for several EUT positions.
Citation
Eduardo Paez, Ciro Tremola, and Marco A. Azpurua, "A Proposed Method for Quantifying Uncertainty in RF Immunity Testing Due to Eut Presence," Progress In Electromagnetics Research B, Vol. 29, 175-190, 2011.
doi:10.2528/PIERB11020802
References

1. Williams, T., EMC for Product Designers, 4th Ed., 164-184, Newness, 2007.
doi:10.1016/B978-075068170-4/50007-4

2. Williams, T. and S. Baker, "Uncertainties of immunity measurements," Main Report of the DTI-NMSPU Project R2.2b1, Schaffiner EMC Systems and Elmac Services, 2002.

3. González, J. and J. Romeu, "Measurement of radiation efficiency and quality factor of fractal antennas: The wheeler cap method," FractalComs, Information Society Technologies Programme, 2002.

4. Smith, G., "An analysis of the Wheeler method for measuring the radiating efficiency of antennas," IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 25, No. 4, 552-556, 1977.
doi:10.1109/TAP.1977.1141615

5. The Expression of Uncertainty in EMC Testing, 1st Ed., UKAS Publication LAB 34, 2002.

6. EMC Measurement Uncertainty: A Handy Guide, Schaffner EMC Systems, 2002.

7. Balanis, C. A., Antenna Theory: Analysis and Design, 3rd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, 2005.

8. Betta, G., D. Capriglione, C. F. M. Carobbi, and M. D. Migliore, "Calibration of antenna for EMI measurements in compact semi-anechoic rooms," 16th IMEKO TC4 Symposium, 2008.

9. Trzaska, H., Electromagnetic Field Measurements in the Near Field, 66-68, Noble Publishing Corporation Atlanta, 2000, ISBN: 10884932-10-X.

10. IEC 61000-4-3 "Testing and measurement techniques --- Radiated, radio-frequency, electromagnetic field immunity test," Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC), Part 4-3, Edition 3.2, Apr. 2010.

11. Przesmycki, R., L. Nowosielski, M. Wnuk, and R. Kubacki, "The expanded uncertainty for radio frequency immunity testing," PIERS Online, Vol. 6, No. 1, 81-85, 2010.
doi:10.2529/PIERS090907022607

12. Dalke, R. A., "A numerical method for the analysis of coupling to thin wire structures," Symposium of Electromagnetic Compatibility, Lakewood, 1988.

13. Pozar, D., Microwave Engineering, 2nd Ed., 87-90, Hohn Wiley & Sons, 1998.

14. Montrose, M. and E. Nakaguchi, Testing for EMC Compliance, Approaches and Techniques, 228-234, IEEE Press, 2004.

15. "Uncertainties in the measurement of mobile radio equipment characteristics," ETSI Technical Report, Part 2, ETSI TR 100 028-2, V1.4.1, December 2001.